Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Virginia Department of Health
State Board of Health
Regulations for the Immunization of School Children [12 VAC 5 ‑ 110]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
10/17/21  11:43 pm
Commenter: Mark Merchant

Mandate is poor policy and poor judgement

The Covid 19 virus has a 98 percent recovery rate.  The Covid-19 "vaccine" has a 2 percent incidence of critical and irreversible health impacts.  Which 2 percent would you have our citizens respect?

The goal of the Covid-19 "vaccine" was to provide a rapid means to slow the progression of Covid-19 and to lessen the severity of the health impact to high risk individuals.  It has accomplished those goals based on the reported statistics about the "vaccine".

The current "vaccine" is not a cure for Covid-19. Based on the infection rate of those who have already been vaccinated, some of whom have contracted Covid-19 multiple times after receiving the "vaccine", its efficacy is already being questioned. 

From the beginning, the facts about Covid-19 have born out that those under age 18 are at the lowest risk of contracting the disease.  Moreover, the facts also demonstrate that those under 18 are not a significant source of infection among their peer group nor a high transmission channel to those over 18.

In addition, those under 18 have the highest recovery rate of any age group. Those under age 18 also have had a disproportionate risk of severe health impacts or complications correlated to their age group.

Based on the scientific information alone the decision to avoid a mandate should be seen as an unnecessary requirement to impose on those of school age.

But if the factual evidence alone was not sufficient to make the decision clear, let's consider the policy decisions for imposing any sort of health care mandate.

Good policy leaves the responsibility and accountability for personal choices and the consequences thereof in the hands of the individual.  This is done as good legal practice because the only way to enforce responsibility is to assign accountability to the person who controls that decision.

If I commit murder, I and I alone am responsible for that choice and the courts will hold me accountable for that decision and will execute the appropriate penalty for such a decision on me as the perpetrator of that action. No one else can assume that responsibility by definition of law.

If the Commonwealth of Virginia or its health department mandates a policy about my individual health, who then becomes responsible if that decision concludes in a dire outcome to me as an individual?  Who will be responsible for making me whole?  Who will bear the penalty for my circumstances based on that policy?

Under a Commonwealth sanctioned mandate , responsibility cannot be assigned to me as an individual since a mandated policy is by definition executed by someone other than the individual and without  an option of choice by the individual. This means that the Commonwealth of Virginia or its department of health will assume full responsibility for any consequences of the execution of the policy.  

Is the Commonwealth of Virginia or its health department ready to assume that responsibility and the potential penalty for such a policy?

Lastly, the proposal being recommended suggests that the U.S. Constitutionally protected right of religious freedom of choice to practice one's religiously held convictions be violated by a State mandated policy. 

There have been several religious sects within the United States since the forming of this country that have refused various medical options that most other citizens would accept.  These include vaccinations, blood transfusions, and organ transplantation among other medical procedures.

While many citizens would consider these religious choices as illogical, detrimental and even deadly, the Constitution of the United States has provided for these choices by religious individuals. The freedom of religious choice has placed full control of these choices  in the hands of the individual. Along with that freedom of choice has come the full acceptance of the consequences for their choices - including to die from the choice to not receive a medical intervention.

By removing the exemption based on religious conviction, the Commonwealth of Virginia not only violates the Constitution of the United States, but also violates one of the oldest  tenants of personal freedom that has been a part of the country since the landing of the Pilgrims of the Mayflower. These Pilgrims who came to America seeking religious freedom as evidenced by the Mayflower compact and subsequently by the Constitution of the United States codified their conviction that their religious convictions superceded the law of man-made government. 

For all of these reason, a mandate requiring a Covid-19 vaccination for those under the age of 18 and not permitting exemption for reasons of deeply held religious conviction should not be enacted in the Commonwealth of Virginia by the State or by any of its agencies, departments or agents.

I respectfully submit this comment for your consideration.

CommentID: 116410